K.K.Lahoti, J.

( 1. ) Plaintiff who was successful before the trial Court but lost before the lower appellate Court has preferred this appeal which was admitted on 5.2.1993 on the following substantial question of law:-

"Whether the finding recorded by the learned lower appellate Court that Gendibai, the vendor in relation to the appellant, was not the real owner of the suit-property, is legal and justified in view of the evidence on record ?"

( 2. ) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted:-

(a) That the lower appellate Court erred in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The trial Court rightly decreed the suit of appellant.

(b) That, on 5.4.1972, Smt.Gendibai (predecessor of the plaintiff) wife of respondent no.2 and mother of respondent no.l sold the property in favour of plaintiff Bhivji. Though defendant Rajesh claimed his title on the basis of sale-deed executed by defendant no.2 Shyam Rao in favour of defendant no.l Rajesh but in fact aforesaid power of attorney was revoked by registered letter Ex.P/5 and in view of the revocation of power of attorney, if any sale-deed was executed by respondent Shyam Rao in favour of respondent Rajesh, it had not conveyed title to defendant Rajesh or affected the right and title of the plaintiff.

(c) That the plaintiff is in possession of the land. Plaintiffs possession was proved by the witnesses, including the Patwari and various revenue record produced by the appellant before the Court below. Apart from this, before this Court various khasra entries were produced by the appellant by an application dated 8.3.2007 u/o 41 rule 27 CPC and this Court by order dated 19.7.2007 allowed the aforesaid application and the khasra entries which are certified copies of the public record were admitted in evidence. Respondents no.l and 2 were extended ah opportunity to file any document in rebuttal but the respondents no. 1 and 2 have not filed documents, so in view of the aforesaid documents, possession of the appellant over the disputed land is established and the appellant is entitled for a decree of declaration of title and permanent injunction against the respondents.

(d) In the alternate, it was submitted by the plaintiff/appellant that the matter may be remanded to the trial Court to ascertain true nature of the transaction, and also whether the properties were sold to defeat the provisions of M.P. Ceiling on Agriculture Holdings Act, 1960 and if not, then the sale-deed was valid and the plaintiffs suit deserves to be decreed.

(e) That, Gendibai who sold the land was having surplus lands. She sold her land not only to the plaintiff but also to other persons, it was not a nominal transaction and the lower appellate Court erred in dismissing the suit of the appellant.

( 3. ) To appreciate the contentions of the appellant, factual position in the case may be seen:-

(i) The suit was filed by Bhivji who died during pendency of this appeal and the appellants are legal heirs of late Bhivji.

(ii) In the case, it was not in dispute that the land belonged to Gendibai. Gendibai was wife of defendant/respondent no.2 Shyam Rao and respondent no. 1 Rajesh is son of Shyam Rao and Gendibai. The disputed lands were Survey no.305 area 18.56 acres of village Kherwani and Survey no.52/2 and 52/3 area 2.92 acres and 2.92 acres of village Patha, Tehsil Sausar, District Chhindwara. Aforesaid lands were sold by a registered sale-deed dated 5.4.1972 by Smt.Gendibai in favour of plaintiff. The plaintiff filed a suit on the basis of the aforesaid sale-deed that he was Bhumiswami of the lands and he be declared so and a permanent injunction be issued against defendants restraining them to interfere in the possession of the plaintiff.

(iii) After filing of written statement, plaintiff amended the plaint raising pleas that the sale-deed was not nominal, plaintiff had not executed power of attorney in favour of defendant Shyam Rao on 25.6.1972 and if any such document is produced then it